KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Dr. B. L. Asawa against the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission seeking an appropriate writ, direction or order.
(2.) ON a requisition made by the State Government the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, respondent No. 2, issued an advertisement on 3-3-72 inviting applications for the recruitment of two Lecturers in Forensic Medicine for Medical College. The relevant portion of the advertisement was as follows: "recruitment of Two Lecturers in Forensic Medicine for Medical Colleges, Medical & Public Health Department in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, ONe post reserved for Scheduled Castes of Rajasthan, if available otherwise treated unreserved. Posts permanent. " The petitioner was an applicant for one of the two posts. He filed his application paying the prescribed fee. According to the petitioner, he secured the degree of M. B. B. S. from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1954. After undergoing housemanship and further working as Demonstrator he was substantively appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon with effect from 25-5-56. In the year 1962 the Medical Services is the State were bifurcated into two services: (1) Rajasthan Medical Service, and (2) Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch ). For the last mentioned service the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, hereinafter to be referred as the "collegiate Branch Rules", were made by the Governor. The petitioner claims to have secured the M. D. Degree in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar in the year 1970. By Government order dated 31-12-70 the petitioner was appointed a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine on temporary basis. After the two posts of Lecturers were advertised as aforesaid the petitioner applied for one of the posts, but he was informed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide letter Annexure-4 that the petitioner lacked the necessary academic qualifications as per the advertisement and consequently his application was rejected. It is this order of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which the petitioner is challenging in the present writ petition and is seeking an appropriate writ, direction or order. It has transpired during the hearing that instead of two posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine four posts of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine were advertised for recruitment. The number of posts advertised is, however, immaterial for the decision of the case. The petitioner is questioning the validity of the order Annexure-4 on the short ground that he was fulfilling the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Collegiate Branch Rules as also those prescribed by the Rajasthan University under its relevant ordinance. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. It is denied that the order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he lacked the necessary academic qualifications was wrong or erroneous on the grounds taken by the petitioner. It was urged by the respondents that the M. D. Degree in Forensic Medicine of the Bihar University, Muzaffurpur, had not been recognised by the University of Rajasthan and consequently the petitioner cannot be said to possess the prescribed qualifications. It was submitted that before rejecting the candidature of the petitioner the Rajasthan Public Service Commission made an enquiry from the University of Rajasthan if the Degree of the Bihar University had been recognised by them and as the University wrote to say to the Commission that the aforesaid Degree of the Bihar University had not been recognised by the University of Rajasthan the Commission in its turn rejected the petitioner's candidature. The only question that, therefore, arises for determination in the writ petition is whether the petitioner can be said to possess the requisite qualifications. Before proceeding further I may mention that on his own the petitioner had entered into correspondence with the Registrar of the Rajasthan University seeking confirmation of his own point of view that he was fulfilling the necessary academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine. The reply that was received by the Principal of the S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur, through whom the petitioner addressed the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, has been placed on record. I will have occasion to refer to it in the course of the discussion hereinafter. At the hearing I asked the learned Deputy Government Advocate to place on record the letter that was addressed by the Commission to the University as he has already placed the University's reply of that letter on record and he did so I will have occasion to refer to the two letters hereinafter. I may at this point deal with the question as to what are the qualifications for appointment as Lecturer in Forensic Medicine according to the Collegiate Branch Rules and the relevant ordinance or regulations of the University. The posts of Lecturers are shown in the Schedule attached to the Collegiate Branch Rules as Part 'c' (Junior Posts ). The method of recruitment is 100% by direct recruitment. Rule 12 of the Collegiate Branch Rules prescribes the academic and technical qualifications for the post of a Lecturer and I may read it in full: 'r. 12 Academic & Technical qualifications - The candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified in part A, B & C of the Schedule shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as is laid down, from time to time, by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in Medical Colleges. " From this rule it is dear that no separate academic or technical qualifications have been prescribed by the Collegiate Branch Rules, but by adoption the academic and technical qualifications and experience as is laid down from time to time by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in medical colleges shall be the prescribed qualifications. Therefore, one has necessarily to look to such academic and technical qualifications and experience as are laid down by the Rajasthan University. There is Ordinance No. 65 occurring in Chaptter XX of the Hand-Book of the University of Rajasthan Part II, Vol. I which inter alia, deals with the Faculty of Medicine. Sub-heading 'a' is for Teachers in Medical Colleges for M. B. B. S. and Post-graduate Courses. I may read its relevant portion: "1. All teachers must possess a basic University or equivalent qualification entered in Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, except in the non-clinical departments of Anatomy Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Micro biology where non-medical teachers, to the extent of 30% of the total posts of the department may be appointed to posts other than that of the Director or Head of the Department, who must necessarily hold a recognised medical qualification. 2. Medical men must be registered under the State Central Medical Registration Act and non-medical persons must be recognised as teachers with the University before appointments are made permanent. 3. All the teachers in Medical Colleges except Registrars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite post-graduate qualification in their respective subjects, "60% of the time spent in recognised research under the Indian Council of Medical Research or a University or a Medical College, after obtaining the requisite Post-graduate qualsfication be counted towards teaching experience for the post of Lecturer in the same or in allied subject provided that 50 per cent of the teaching experience shall be the regular teaching experience. 5. Equivalent qualification referred 1 to above and in the recommendations below shall be determined by the University of Rajasthan. 6. In case of specialities under Medicine and Surgery the qualifications and experience should also be as scheduled below but in case the post has been advertised and suitable candidates are not available, the qualification can be relaxed. " This is followed by a tabular statement headed 'requirements of Special Academic Qualifications and Teaching Experience. Column 1 of this table deals with the Posts. Column 2 lays down the academic qualifications and column 3 is about Teaching Experience. The table has a number of sub-headings according to the various specialities. The speciality of Forensic Medicine is given at page 168 of the Hand-Book (1971 Edition ). The relevant provision regarding a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine is as follows: " (d) Assistant Professor/ Lecturer M. D (Path.), M. D. (Forensic Medicine), Speciality Board of Pathology (U S A.) M. D/m. R. C. P. / F. R. C. P. (with Diploma D F. M.), M R. C. P. (with Forensic Medicine as Special Subject) or Equivalent qualification or Post-graduate degree or equivalent qualification in Medicine or Surgery. Two years of Medicolegal work. " Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner strongly emphasises that the post-graduate Degree need not be of the University of Rajasthan and it could be any other University in India, learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the Degree may not be of the University of Rajasthan it must be one such as has been recognised as an equivalent qualification by the University of Rajasthan to its own Degree. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the provisions of sec. 23a of the Rajasthan University Act and submitted that it is the function of the Academic Council to advise the Syndicate regarding equivalence of examinations and recognition of other bodies but, argued learned counsel, there was no provision as such for recognition of Degrees of other Universities. Degrees of other Universities, according to him, which are established by law take effect by their own force and their efficacy is not dependent on their recognition by the University of Rajasthan. According to learned counsel, the provision for recognition of the examinations of other Universities as equivalent to the examinations, of the University of Rajasthan is for the limited purpose of admitting candidates to higher courses in the University, but according to learned counsel that has not to be done for the purpose of securing service under the Govt. of the University. Learned counsel further drew attention to the fact that accord ing to the Ordinance 331 there is an Equivalence Committee which consists of the Vice Chancellor and Deans of Faculties. Then learned counsel copiously referred to Regulations 44a, 44b, 44e and 44f and endeavoured to show that the equivalence that is contemplated is one of the examinations and that too in respect of such examinations as are held by the Rajasthan University itself, but there is no provision for recognition of Degrees of other Universities as such Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the purpose of recognition of equivalence cannot be restricted to that of admission to higher courses of the University, but will cover even the academic qualifications that the University of Rajasthan has prescribed for its teaching staff. Referring to serial 12 under Regulation 44f, learned Deputy Government Advocate put emphasis on the fact that only some of the Degrees of the Bihar University, Muzffarpur, have been recognised and unlike that of many other Universities the Degree of M. D. or M. D. in Forensic Medicine has not been recognised as an equivalent one. 10. Both the learned counsel are, however, agreed on one point and it is that the Rajasthan University does not hold any examination for the Degree of M. D. in Forensic Medicine nor does it confer any such degree. This, according to learned Deputy Government Advocate is immaterial for the present purposes. 11. I may first reproduce the two letters that were exchanged between the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the University of Rajasthan. "rajasthan PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION No. F. 7 (3) Rectt-R/71-72/3063 6-6-1973 The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Sir, I am directed to say that while examining the qualifications awarded by the various Universities, the Commission observed whether the degree of M. D. awarded by the University of Bihar, has been recognised by the University of Rajasthan. I am, therefore, to request you kindly to intimate if the equivalence committee of the University has recommended to the Academic Council/syndicate of the University recognition of the degree of M. D. of Bihar University whether the Syndicate has taken any decision in this matter. A copy of the resolution, if any, passed in this behalf may kindly be furnished to this office. Since the above information is required in connection with a case pending with the Commission I am to request you kindly to furnish the requisite information at a very early date. " "from, The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, To, The Asstt. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. F. 4. 1/73/aca II/1973-A Dated, Jaipur 14-6-1973 Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No. F. 7 (30) Rectt-B 71-72/3063 dated 6-6-73 on the above subject. I write to inform you that the said degree of Bihar University, Mazaffarpur, is not recognised by this University. " On the side of the petitioner the letter that he wrote to the University was as follows: Jaipur dated 25-9-1973. "from, Dr. B. L. Asawa, L. & I. Hospital, M. D. Road, Jaipur. To, The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL Ref: - Your office letter No. 4989-A dated 28-8-1973. Sir, The University vide its letter No. quoted above on furnishing my qualification and experience as reproduced below has categorically informed me through the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur that I fulfil the requirements as per 0. 65 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and that the University accepts degrees/diplomas of the statutory Universities which clearly purports that M. D. Degree of Bihar University is accepted by the University of Rajasthan for the purpose of appointment for teaching staff in Medical Colleges. I - Qualification - (a) M. B. B. S.- Rajasthan University. 1954. (b) M. D.- Bihar University (Forensic Medicine), 1970. II - Experience - Medico-legal 3 years 10 months and 11 days till 5-12-1972. (Medico-legal 4 years 8 months and 10 days till date ). 2. I have come to know that in reply to a query made by the R. P. S. C. , the University vide its letter No. 4-1/73/aca-II (1973 of 14-6-73 had informed the R. P. S. C. that the M. D. degree awarded by Bihar University of Muzzaffarpur, is not recognised by this University without mentioning therein the purpose of the recognition in question viz; whether for appointment of teaching staff or for admission to higher studies in the University. 3. Under the circumstances, I wish to know that the position with regard to recognition of degrees awarded by the University of Bihar, are not recognised only for purpose of admission to the higher studies or whether the said recognition of the equivalence of examination as laid down vide Regulation 44-A to 44 I under Ordinance 330 and 331 governs the appointment of teachers also. 4. The misleading information sent by you to the Public Service Commission has created an analogous situation which may soon be clarified. A letter of clarification with regard to the M. D. Degree of Bihar University for the purpose of appointments may kindly be sent immediately so as to avoid any confusion which might have been created by your letter quoted in para 2 of this letter. " the reply that was given by the Registrar to the above letter was as follows: "from, The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. To, The Principal, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur. No. F. 3-1/73 (Aca. II) 6863-A Dated Jaipur 1-10-1973. Dear Sir, Please refer to your endorsement No. F. 3, 36117/mc/20 dated the 25th Sept. , 1973 forwarding therewith an application of Dr. B. L. Asawa. Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, I write to inform you that the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service, Ajmer vide his letter No. F. 7 (3) Rectt-B/71-72/3063 dated 6-6-1973 had enquired that if the equivalence Committee of the University has recommended to the Academic Council/syndicate the recognition of the degree of M. D. of Bihar University and whether the Syndicate has taken any decision in this matter. In response to the said letter a reply to the effect that the said degree has not been recognised by the University was sent to the Public Service Commission vide this office letter No. F. l4-1/73 (Aca. II) 1973-A dated 14-6-73. 1 he Secretary while enquiring about the recognition of the said degree no where mentioned in the letter about the purpose for which he needs such an information. Had the Secretary mentioned the fact that the said information is needed by him for the purpose of appointment as teachers in Medical colleges this anomalous situation would not have been arisen. I would like to mention that the examinations, which are recognised by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee and the Academic Council and as are listed under R. 44-A to 44 - I are recognised as equivalent to the corresponding examinations of the University for the purpose of higher studies/recognition of Ph. D. etc. and not for the purpose of appointments of teaching staff in the affiliated colleges as the appointments of teachers in the affiliated Medical colleges are governed by 0. 65 VII of the University Hand Book Pt. II and the University accepts the degree/ Diploma of the Statutory Indian Universities unless otherwise mentioned in the said Ordinance. As such for the purpose of appointment, University accepts the M. D. degree of Bihar University by the virtue of its being awarded by a statutory University. On the basis of the information supplied by Dr. B. L Asawa as contained in his letter duly forwarded by you vide endorsement No. F. 3 (MC/20/3264l dated 24-8-1973 it has already been intimated to you vide this office letter No. 4988-A dated 28-8-1973 that Dr. Asawa fulfils the] academic qualifications as laid down vide 0. 6> VII for the post of lecturer in Forensic Medicine in any Medical college affilisted to the University. Yours truly, Sd/- Registrar. " I have carefully read all these four letters, but even bearing in mind the respective contexts of the two letters addressed by the Registrar of the University one to the Commission and the other to the Principal, S. M. S. Medical College through whom the petitioner addressed the Registrar I find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the contents of the two letters. The letters do not leave a good taste in one's mouth and it is better to leave the matter at that.
(3.) THE question is one of interpreting the relevant statutory provisions which I have referred already and for that the view expressed by the Registrar in one letter in one manner and in the other differently will be of no assistance whatsoever. THE Court has to interpret the statutory provisions uninfluenced by what the Registrar had written on the two occasions. Now sec. 12 of the Collegiate Branch Rules only adopts academic qualifications and experience as is laid down from time to time by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in the Medical Colleges. The problem is thus one of ascertaining as to what those academic and technical qualifications and experience are. The clear provision regarding this is Ordinance 65 which I have already read. All teachers in the first instance have to possess a basic University or equivalent qualification entered in the Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 except in certain non-clinical departments. The second requirement is that the Medical men must be registered under the State Central Medical Registration Act and non-medical persons must be recognised as teachers with the University before appointments are made permanent. Then the third qualification and this is the most important ore is that all the teachers in Medical Colleges except Registrars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite post-graduate qualification in their respective subjects. If one were to interpret this clause uninfluenced by anything else then it clearly means that in the case of a Lecturer in a Medical College he must possess the post-graduate qualification in the subject in which he to be a Lecturer. In other words, an M. D. will be fulfilling the requisite academic qualifications prescribed under clause 3. The Ordinance does not say that he must be an M. D. of the Rajasthan University. Indeed, Rajasthan University does not impart post-graduate education in the speciality of Forensic Medicine, nor does it confer any degrees in the speciality. Ex. necessitate therefore, it would be a degree of some other University. The next question is whether this plain language of clause 3 can be modified by adding the words that such post-graduate degree of another University should be recognised by the University of Rajasthan. I am afraid, according to the well known canons of interpretation that is not permissible since the language of clause 3 is quite plain and admits of no ambiguity. Learned Deputy Government Advocate put emphasis on clause 5 which is to the effect that equivalent qualification referred to above and in the recommendations below shall be determined by the University of Rajasthan. This, to my mind, means that the verious clauses, to be so interpreted must deal with equi-valent qualifications along side the prescribed degree. The words "or equivalent qualifications" occur in clause I and in the fallowings clause 5. There is, however, no room to infer that a degree of a sister University established by a statute will not be having efficacy by its own vigour but it will need recognition for the purposes of Ordinance 65 to make the holder of a degree eligible for appointment as a teacher in Rajasthan. At any rate, even if there were such a meaning that was intended then that has not been brought out by the language employed. To make a person who is holding a post-graduate degree in the speciality from of a University in India established by law ineligible for the purposes of Ordinance 65 one needs a clearer enunciation than what one finds. The doors of a person to seek employment cannot be shut by use of language which is not clearly susceptible of the meaning that is sought to be given to this Ordinance. Now I may turn to regulation 44 to which my attention was invited. Chapter 40 of the Rajasthan University Act, 1946 deals with equivalence of examination. Under sec. 23a it is the function of the Academic Council to advise the Syndicate regarding equivalence of examinations and recognition of the examinations of other bodies. The first part deals with equivalence of examinations and the second part deals with recognition of examinations of other bodies. The first part will clearly be covering the contingency when there is correspondence between the examinations of a body with the examinations that the Rajasthan University is holding. The second part relates to recognition of the examinations of other bodies as such. Ordinance 44f is to the following effect: "the following examinations of the undermentioned Universities have been recognised as equivalent to the corresponding examination of the University as shown against each subject to the provisions of the foregoing Regulation 44d. " Then there is a tabular statement with two columns and with two saparate headings. The first column is about the name of examinations of other Universities and the second column is about equivalent examinations of this University. Then various Universities are mentioned under column No. 1 and also the various degrees or examinations of such Universities are mentioned. In the second column opposite to each entry pertaining to a particular University are mentioned the corresponding examinations of the Rajasthan University. At serial number 12 is the Bihar University Mazzaffarpur. Under the first column various examinations are mentioned and opposite that are mentioned the corresponding examinations of the Rajasthan University. The frame of regulation 44f unmistakably shows that the equivalence expressly relates to the examinations that are held by the Rajasthan University. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Rajasthan University does not hold any examination for the degree of M. D. in Forensic Medicine. There could thus be no occasion under regulation 44f to mention the post-graduate degree of the Bihar University in Forensic Medicine. Thus this regulation 44f cannot be of any help in interpreting Ordinance 65. I am, therefore, unable to hold that there was any sound legal basis for the Public Service Commission to have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that M. D. Degree in Forensic Medicine of the Bihar University had not been recognised by the Rajasthan University. It follows as a necessary corollary that there has been denial of equal opportunity to seek employment under the State as contemplated by Art. 16 of the Constitution so far as the petitioner was concerned. The consequential appointments made are, therefore, not valid. ;